11 ms·

This is what terrifies me about leaving. My current job almost called the place I was working at to verify my employment, but I requested them to wait until the

This is what terrifies me about leaving. My current job almost called the place I was working at to verify my employment, but I requested them to wait until the interviews were over, because my last boss was the kind of guy to fire people arbitrarily. Once he fired a guy for not working on his house...that employee was hired as help desk. Thankfully I passed all my interviews and they called him right after I was almost guaranteed to get the position. Took a few insults from the guy, but haven't heard anything from him since I left thankfully.

number6 4y ago
What stops your boss from lying to the company: danjoredd? Never heard of this guy. Never worked here and if he did, he would have done a lousy job. Glad I could help!
- sidewndr46 4y ago
  Why would he need to lie? Couldn't he just tell the caller to stop wasting his time and hang up?
- selectodude 4y ago
  The fact that it’s a slam dunk lawsuit for the plaintiff. https://www.justia.com/employment/defamation/ https://www.justia.com/employment/defamation/
  - bathtub365 4y ago
    Except you have to be willing to take someone to court over that.
    - ryandrake 4y ago
      Exactly, and you have to be willing to bear the time and expense of suing a corporation with more money and attorneys than you. Every time someone has a casual "Well, you can just sue them" answer to being wronged, they forget that the court system (at least in the US) is inaccessible unless you're rich and richer than your opponent. If my employer does something wrong to me, like wage theft, fraud, harassment, discrimination, it doesn't matter that I can sue them in theory. In practice, it's me and my $5,000 in life savings vs. 100 corporate attorneys working at a $N billion company who will inundate you with paperwork and motions and procedural tricks. Not to mention, if you sue them, they will fire you in retaliation (which is also probably illegal) and may even go so far as informally blacklisting you in your industry. So you're giving up your time, your life savings, likely going into debt, and giving up your future employability, just to pit your one already over-worked attorney vs. their army. Good luck.
      - danjoredd 4y ago
        Thats why, even if I hate the company I work for, I always do my best to keep a good relationship with them. Thats not always possible of course, but having former coworkers being able to say good things about you helps take a lot of worry off my back.
      - marcosdumay 4y ago
        The extent varies, but courts do see in a very bad light companies applying too many resources against people they clearly harmed. When those people are employees, the view gets worse. That doesn't mean that suing is easy or cheap, but only that things are way more balanced than your comment makes it look like.
        TheDesolate0 4y ago
      - dragontamer 4y ago
        I'd at least speak to a lawyer to see how "easy" a case is. One attorney may be all you need if the evidence is grossly in your favor. No point denying yourself the opportunity, especially if you can afford the consultation fees. If its a difficult case, then a good lawyer will tell you ahead of time that they don't think they can win and that you probably shouldn't pursue the case. If its borderline, they'll probably accept the case but you gotta pay them. If its ridiculously easy, they'll take the case for free on their dime / contingency (because they're so confident they're gonna win).
      - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
        In slam dunk cases, either because you're being sued frivolously or suing someone for a well-documented violation of a clear-cut law, then the legal work can be cut down dramatically by filing a motion for summary judgment. If you're not relying on disputed material facts for your argument, i.e., "I'm being sued by my former employer for violating my non-compete clause. This is the non-compete clause. It is not enforceable because it violates California labor law", it' definitely the way to go.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Except, you don't sue the individual. You sue the company since the individual was acting as a representative of the company. The company has much deeper pockets than the individual. On "slam dunk" cases, some lawyers will work for small retainer and large cut of settlement. You no longer have to spend time chasing. You just supply lawyer with info when requested.
    - kube-system 4y ago
      You just have to make someone believe you’d be willing to take it to court. In reality, very few civil disputes make it to a court room. In a case like this, your lawyer would send their lawyer a letter, their lawyer would tell them they’re going to lose, and you’d negotiate a settlement.
  - Forgeties79 4y ago
    Gotta prove it and go through the not-so-easy process of suing someone in the US.
    - selectodude 4y ago
      It's really, really easy to sue somebody in the US. Even easier when you have an attorney who will take something like that to court on contingency since it's such an easy payout.
      - Forgeties79 4y ago
        Maybe so. But I think a lot of people feel like me in that they find the entire process daunting. I’ve got young kids, a full-time job, I’m pretty much slammed all the time. Just the theoretical idea of adding “lawsuit” to my to-do list is already exhausting.
        selectodude 4y ago
        Fortunately enough people have sued where the official policy of any company larger than like, 1 employee, is to confirm dates of employment and say nothing else.
        dylan604 4y ago
        >But I think a lot of people feel like me in that they find the entire process daunting. Consider that is exactly what bigCorp wants to you to feel. With that in mind, your feeling of daunt is doing exactly what the bigCorp? So do something for yourself and not in bigCorp's favor, and get over it and do what's right.
        Forgeties79 4y ago
        Not sure why you’re coming at me for expressing apprehension. Ease off the throttle, please.
        4y ago
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    Perhaps one of the upsides to working for big companies. It's probably not going to be your boss they call, it'll be the HR department. And they probably won't say anything more than "yes, this person worked here." Both because they don't know you, and because the legal department has carefully educated them on what they can and cannot say.
- danjoredd 4y ago
  I had other forms of proof that I worked there like paystubs. He could have lied, but it would not have worked. Now my performance? He could def lie about that. Thankfully my other past jobs could verify my hard work because I left with good relations, so if he lied it would have been an outlier. Reputation is important! It can be the difference between one company having complete control over your future, and being able to choose to do what you want.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - pevey 4y ago
    If he did lie about your performance, and if there were not documented examples of your performance to back up every single thing he said, that would also be grounds for an easy lawsuit. Tortious interference with employment. That's why most companies ask (beg) executives not to give any type of employment reference. They have a department or outside company who handles that by giving factual information only. Employed, yes or no, and dates. That's it. Even if you think you are giving a positive or "balanced" reference, something you say could spook the potential employer, and you could be sued for it.
    - workingdog 4y ago
      I work around people who are reluctant to give an honest appraisal because of the fear of legal repercussions by asking: "Would you hire this person again?" We get a 99% answer rate on that question.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        To be honest, I'm surprised that question works. It's close enough to a real opinion that eventually someone will lose a defamation case on it and then legal will tell HR to stop answering it.
        SoftTalker 4y ago
gavinray 4y ago
Can't they just look at your company's Github and see you belong to their org + your commits to their repos?
- Chico75 4y ago
  Doesn't apply to most companies
tharkun__ 4y ago
This is effed up. In my book, the company that you're interviewing with should never call your current employer. Call my ex-employers and references I provide all you want. But if you call my current employer, I will not work for you and I will deny ever having spoken to said other company if my boss asked me. It'd be a surefire way to make me stay at my current company (and keep interviewing in other places, because I probably do want to leave). Heck I don't even update my LinkedIn until a year or more after I move companies. I do update it way before I might want to jump ship again, just like the "Looking for work" flag. My current employer's HR department will get no direct signal that I'm actually looking if I can avoid it. I'd go as far as not using LinkedIn functionality to apply to something. For all I know LinkedIn provides a paid for service to my current employer that notifies them, that I'm interviewing.
- codecutter 4y ago
  That's why I don't even use LinkedIn at all.

number6 4y ago

What stops your boss from lying to the company: danjoredd? Never heard of this guy. Never worked here and if he did, he would have done a lousy job. Glad I could help!

sidewndr46 4y ago
Why would he need to lie? Couldn't he just tell the caller to stop wasting his time and hang up?
selectodude 4y ago
The fact that it’s a slam dunk lawsuit for the plaintiff. https://www.justia.com/employment/defamation/ https://www.justia.com/employment/defamation/
- bathtub365 4y ago
  Except you have to be willing to take someone to court over that.
  - ryandrake 4y ago
    Exactly, and you have to be willing to bear the time and expense of suing a corporation with more money and attorneys than you. Every time someone has a casual "Well, you can just sue them" answer to being wronged, they forget that the court system (at least in the US) is inaccessible unless you're rich and richer than your opponent. If my employer does something wrong to me, like wage theft, fraud, harassment, discrimination, it doesn't matter that I can sue them in theory. In practice, it's me and my $5,000 in life savings vs. 100 corporate attorneys working at a $N billion company who will inundate you with paperwork and motions and procedural tricks. Not to mention, if you sue them, they will fire you in retaliation (which is also probably illegal) and may even go so far as informally blacklisting you in your industry. So you're giving up your time, your life savings, likely going into debt, and giving up your future employability, just to pit your one already over-worked attorney vs. their army. Good luck.
    - danjoredd 4y ago
      Thats why, even if I hate the company I work for, I always do my best to keep a good relationship with them. Thats not always possible of course, but having former coworkers being able to say good things about you helps take a lot of worry off my back.
    - marcosdumay 4y ago
      The extent varies, but courts do see in a very bad light companies applying too many resources against people they clearly harmed. When those people are employees, the view gets worse. That doesn't mean that suing is easy or cheap, but only that things are way more balanced than your comment makes it look like.
      - TheDesolate0 4y ago
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      I'd at least speak to a lawyer to see how "easy" a case is. One attorney may be all you need if the evidence is grossly in your favor. No point denying yourself the opportunity, especially if you can afford the consultation fees. If its a difficult case, then a good lawyer will tell you ahead of time that they don't think they can win and that you probably shouldn't pursue the case. If its borderline, they'll probably accept the case but you gotta pay them. If its ridiculously easy, they'll take the case for free on their dime / contingency (because they're so confident they're gonna win).
    - OkayPhysicist 4y ago
      In slam dunk cases, either because you're being sued frivolously or suing someone for a well-documented violation of a clear-cut law, then the legal work can be cut down dramatically by filing a motion for summary judgment. If you're not relying on disputed material facts for your argument, i.e., "I'm being sued by my former employer for violating my non-compete clause. This is the non-compete clause. It is not enforceable because it violates California labor law", it' definitely the way to go.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Except, you don't sue the individual. You sue the company since the individual was acting as a representative of the company. The company has much deeper pockets than the individual. On "slam dunk" cases, some lawyers will work for small retainer and large cut of settlement. You no longer have to spend time chasing. You just supply lawyer with info when requested.
  - kube-system 4y ago
    You just have to make someone believe you’d be willing to take it to court. In reality, very few civil disputes make it to a court room. In a case like this, your lawyer would send their lawyer a letter, their lawyer would tell them they’re going to lose, and you’d negotiate a settlement.
- Forgeties79 4y ago
  Gotta prove it and go through the not-so-easy process of suing someone in the US.
  - selectodude 4y ago
    It's really, really easy to sue somebody in the US. Even easier when you have an attorney who will take something like that to court on contingency since it's such an easy payout.
    - Forgeties79 4y ago
      Maybe so. But I think a lot of people feel like me in that they find the entire process daunting. I’ve got young kids, a full-time job, I’m pretty much slammed all the time. Just the theoretical idea of adding “lawsuit” to my to-do list is already exhausting.
      - selectodude 4y ago
        Fortunately enough people have sued where the official policy of any company larger than like, 1 employee, is to confirm dates of employment and say nothing else.
      - dylan604 4y ago
        >But I think a lot of people feel like me in that they find the entire process daunting. Consider that is exactly what bigCorp wants to you to feel. With that in mind, your feeling of daunt is doing exactly what the bigCorp? So do something for yourself and not in bigCorp's favor, and get over it and do what's right.
        Forgeties79 4y ago
        Not sure why you’re coming at me for expressing apprehension. Ease off the throttle, please.
        4y ago
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  Perhaps one of the upsides to working for big companies. It's probably not going to be your boss they call, it'll be the HR department. And they probably won't say anything more than "yes, this person worked here." Both because they don't know you, and because the legal department has carefully educated them on what they can and cannot say.
danjoredd 4y ago
I had other forms of proof that I worked there like paystubs. He could have lied, but it would not have worked. Now my performance? He could def lie about that. Thankfully my other past jobs could verify my hard work because I left with good relations, so if he lied it would have been an outlier. Reputation is important! It can be the difference between one company having complete control over your future, and being able to choose to do what you want.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- pevey 4y ago
  If he did lie about your performance, and if there were not documented examples of your performance to back up every single thing he said, that would also be grounds for an easy lawsuit. Tortious interference with employment. That's why most companies ask (beg) executives not to give any type of employment reference. They have a department or outside company who handles that by giving factual information only. Employed, yes or no, and dates. That's it. Even if you think you are giving a positive or "balanced" reference, something you say could spook the potential employer, and you could be sued for it.
  - workingdog 4y ago
    I work around people who are reluctant to give an honest appraisal because of the fear of legal repercussions by asking: "Would you hire this person again?" We get a 99% answer rate on that question.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      To be honest, I'm surprised that question works. It's close enough to a real opinion that eventually someone will lose a defamation case on it and then legal will tell HR to stop answering it.
      - SoftTalker 4y ago

gavinray 4y ago

Can't they just look at your company's Github and see you belong to their org + your commits to their repos?

Chico75 4y ago
Doesn't apply to most companies

tharkun__ 4y ago

This is effed up. In my book, the company that you're interviewing with should never call your current employer. Call my ex-employers and references I provide all you want. But if you call my current employer, I will not work for you and I will deny ever having spoken to said other company if my boss asked me. It'd be a surefire way to make me stay at my current company (and keep interviewing in other places, because I probably do want to leave). Heck I don't even update my LinkedIn until a year or more after I move companies. I do update it way before I might want to jump ship again, just like the "Looking for work" flag. My current employer's HR department will get no direct signal that I'm actually looking if I can avoid it. I'd go as far as not using LinkedIn functionality to apply to something. For all I know LinkedIn provides a paid for service to my current employer that notifies them, that I'm interviewing.

codecutter 4y ago
That's why I don't even use LinkedIn at all.